The distortion of Charles Eastman
The portrayal of Dr. Charles Alexander Eastman Having Eastman as a main character in the film is not a major issue; having him working with Henry Dawes in formulating the Dawes Act is unconscionable. In fact, the repeated appearances in many scenes of Eastman and Dawes, and even Elaine Goodale on several occasions, who would become Eastman's wife, takes poetic license too far and distorts history too much. The film version of Dawes arranging the meeting of Charles and Elaine, with her approving mother present, never happened. In fact, Elaine's mother was a racist who did not want her daughter to marry him and even threatened not to attend their wedding. Yes, Eastman did initially support aspects of the Dawes Act, particularly the granting of citizenship to Indians, but he later denounced the legislation. Additionally, Dawes never was the mentor of Eastman and did not help him secure the position of renaming the Indians after Eastman resigned as a government physician.
Adam Beach did a superb job as Charles Eastman (as did Anna Paquin as Elaine Goodale). It is too bad that Beach did not or perhaps could not demand a more accurate portrayal of this fascinating, controversial and significant man. Several of my colleagues who teach Indian history have expressed similar views about the inaccuracies of Eastman's life in the film as well as many other historical fabrications. If the main purpose of the film is to educate non-Indians about Indian history, why include so many historical inaccuracies that were not needed? Does this not weaken the main objective? This writer realizes that Hollywood needs to apply poetic license to its films to make them more "attractive" and entertaining. I would argue, however, that a more accurate portrayal of the life of Charles Eastman would have made the film better and would still have the entertainment qualities required.
11 comments:
Writerfella here --
Hilarious! If Adam Beach did "demand a more accurate portrayal of this fascinating, controversial and significant man (read: Charles Eastman in BURY MY HEART...)", Adam Beach might as well have gotten on the bus back to Ottawa because there would have been no part for him in the film. As writerfella has stated heretofore, the one predictable result from such asking or even demanding would be for non-Natives to be hired to play the Native parts, which is an old film industry tradition. Maybe that's what the critics really want, the elimination of Native actors from such roles because there can be no other outcome...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
There was absolutely no chance the producers would hire a non-Native to play the starring Native role in such a visible and prestigious project. If they did, the press and the public would've excoriated them. In fact, I'll wager that no major motion picture or TV show will ever hire a non-Native to play a starring Native role again.
There was little chance the producers would replace Adam Beach if he asked some reasonable questions about the script. Beach is becoming a star with a multimillion-dollar contract (Law & Order: SVU) and the corresponding clout. He's perhaps the only Native actor many Americans can name.
Anyone the producers replaced him with would've been an unknown to most people. Would the producers have risked their production and millions of dollars just to make a point with Beach? I don't think so.
Anyway, what Wilson wrote was, "It is too bad that Beach did not or perhaps could not demand a more accurate portrayal of this fascinating, controversial and significant man." In other words, Wilson concedes Beach may not have had enough pull to demand changes. Do you have a problem with that?
What exactly are you laughing at: Beach's lack of clout? Or Wilson's acknowledgment of Beach's lack of clout? The only hilarious thing here is your apparent misunderstanding of what Wilson wrote.
What critics want is obvious: better movies. Do you really think producers would respond to critics by hiring non-Natives instead of Natives? Since critics would only redouble their criticism, how would that alleviate the producers' problems?
Previously you claimed critics are powerless to help or harm movies. Now you're hypothesizing they may have enough power to eliminate Native actors. Well, which is it? Why don't you make up your mind?
Here, I'll help: You're wrong on both counts. Critics often help "small" movies reach their intended audience. And critics are one of the reasons Native movies now use Native actors.
Writerfella here --
And that's where the equation fails: "better movies". "Better" by whose standards, "better" by whose expertise, "better" by whom? Are the so-called critics truly of the intent to impose their own ideas and directions on creative enterprise when they themselves mostly lack both creativity and industry participation? It is reminiscent of one particular film where AIM non-creative types were allowed to impose their ideas and directions on a project that quickly became a long-forgotten disaster. NOBODY LOVES A DRUNKEN INDIAN, which with AIM's involvement became NOBODY LOVES FLAPPING EAGLE and finally FLAP. It likely is one of those debacles that never will see a DVD release because it eminently was a travesty and a box-office failure. What's next? Critics will approach General Motors to tell them how to make Pontiac autos? Their intent might be to make for better cars, but if they personally lack any practical knowledge or engineering expertise, it ain't gonna happen. Instead, they fail to realize that they are consumers of automobiles, just as they are consumers of motion pictures. Ipso facto...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
People have written volumes on what makes a movie good. If you don't know anything about film theory, I suggest you educate yourself.
Here's what a few people have said on the subject. Read and learn:
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art44487.asp
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~schacht/rhe309k-05/amym/what%20makes%20a%20good%20movie.htm
http://www.reelfulfillment.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=11
You forgot William Golding's dictum that "nobody knows anything." That applies to movies, not to cars.
How many times do I have to tell you that most critics are accomplished writers in their own right? They know how to tell a story and therefore how to dissect one. Plot, characterization, narrative...these are the tools of any writer.
Really, are you totally ignorant of movie criticism, or do you just seem that way? Critics usually don't criticize film speeds or camera angles or lens filters. They don't criticize a production's budget or management or schedule. They do criticize plots and characters because they know these things as well as anyone.
No one is saying that criticizing a movie is equivalent to making a movie. But moviemakers don't put the entire production process on the screen. They put a story on the screen and critics respond to that.
By your "thinking," you couldn't say whether a government policy was good or bad unless you voted on it yourself. You couldn't say whether food tasted good or bad unless you cooked it yourself. Do you really want to take such an inane position?
Incidentally, actors such as Adam Beach generally sign contracts to appear in movies. Once they sign, they're free to question a script without fear of losing their jobs.
Producers can fire them only if they pay them in full. That's something most producers will go out of their way to avoid.
Writerfella here --
And now writerfella will ask those most seminal of questions: HOW MANY movies have you, Rob, been any part of? HOW MANY movies have you been an actor in? HOW MANY movies did you have an opportunity as a part of the cast to question the script and ask for changes? Or is it the case that all of the movies with which you ever were involved meant that you bought your ticket and you then watched the film? The answers to those seminal questions will be quite telling, and you likely will not answer them therefore. writerfella was in seven motion pictures and he has written six screenplays. That in and of itself is meaningful, in its own way...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Wow, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? I'm the one who's willing to answer questions, remember? You're the one who isn't.
My involvement in actual moviemaking is limited to writing, editing, and critiquing parts of screenplays. And I'm just talking about screenplays that I and others have written, not screenplays in production. There...satisfied?
Of course, my "involvement" includes more than just buying tickets and watching movies. I've read and studied analyses of moviemaking--both in general and about particular movies. I know the moviemaker's language, goals, and techniques.
(Oh, and our house was used in the making of The President's Analyst starring James Coburn. But I was only 10 then.)
Now you can answer some questions. You've acted in and written some movies. Apparently you haven't budgeted, cast, or directed such movies. Do you admit you're unqualified to speak on any aspect of moviemaking except screenwriting and acting?
You didn't address my government-policy analogy. Why not...because the answer would be "quite telling"? Here, I'll spell it out for you:
You've criticized government policies many times in this blog. What are your qualifications for doing so? Did you write and pass these laws yourself?
You're claiming you need actual, hands-on experience before you can criticize anything. But you haven't followed this policy in your own postings. Are you a raving hypocrite, or are you just too blind too see your own contradictions?
Be sure to answer these questions explicitly, brave boy. As you put it, your failure to answer will be quite telling.
Writerfella here --
Luckily for writerfella, he never answers such questions explicitly, because the asker wishes to control the answer and thus to prove his point therefore. Unfortunately, the question becomes the revelant issue and the inquisitor becomes the villain. Whether he realizes it or not...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Re "Unfortunately, the question becomes the revelant issue and the inquisitor becomes the villain": I guess that explains why you asked me your "seminal questions." You were trying control the answer(s) and thus prove your point. By your own standard, you're a villain as well as an inquisitor.
As I said, your failure to answer my questions is "quite telling." You expect me to answer your questions, but you refuse to answer mine. In other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it. You're a coward as well as a hypocrite.
P.S. You spelled "relevant" wrong, bright boy. Learn to use a spell-checker so I don't have to keep pointing out your mistakes.
Post a Comment